Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Wohl

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

(

)

Jacob Wohl

... that Jacob Wohl has allegedly been responsible for at least three unsuccessful plots to frame public figures for fictitious sexual assaults? Source: [1]
- ALT1:... that Jacob Wohl was banned for life by the National Futures Association when he was only 19 years old? Source: [2][3]
- ALT2:... that the largest fine ever sought by the Federal Communications Commission for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was proposed against Jacob Wohl in August 2021? Source: [4]
- ALT3:... that Jacob Wohl inspired an internet meme with his tweets about "hipster coffee shops"? Source: [5][6][7]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Black Student Union

Improved to Good Article status by GorillaWarfare (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

Hi there, GorillaWarfare! Let's start with the good news—the article is new enough, long enough, and neutral by consensus. The image is used in the article freely licensed, and pretty clear. Your qpq checks out, and the article is well-written.

Unfortunately, i have some issues here, too, some more nitpicky than others. The biggest issue is going to be the hooks. While I'm not going to challenge the article's neutrality, a hook about a living person can't be overly negative, even if it's verifiably accurate and true to the overall tone of the article. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, we'd have to find something else to focus on. ALT2 might work, but i think we'd need a new one entirely.

There are some more minor issues to work out, too—each direct quote should probably have an inline citation at the end of the sentence. And while most of the earwig hits are from quotes, the blurb truth is an obsolete concept should probably be rephrased.

this nom does need some work, but we're not far off! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for the review! I think I've fully addressed your concerns about the citation placement and the too-similar phrase (new report link). As for the hooks, that's a bit tricky given Wohl's notability is pretty much solely based on actions most people (though perhaps not Wohl) find negative. I've added an ALT3, any potential there do you think? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:

I'm bumping up against the same problem with the hooks. The text of the rule is Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided (although WP:HOOK doesn't include "unduly", while other sets of rules do). We couldn't run ALT3 for Wohl; we'd all look like doofuses if we made a light, quirky hook out of this article and ran it on the main page. The original hooks (although I'm vetoing ALT0) seem to be more true to the nature of the article, and given that the article is well-sourced to boot, I'm not sure that deviating from that tone is the best choice. Policywise, I can't reject the hooks outright, but I'm not sure that any one of these is a hook I'd be willing to approve, either. I'm leaving this open for another opinion, and I'll put a notice up on WT:DYK, because I think this one might need some wider input. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, understood. Alright, I'll wait to hear from others at WT:DYK, but not the end of the world if this just isn't a good candidate for DYK. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the original proposal leans a bit too hard into something being alleged (given that anyone can "allege" anything), and I agree that ALT3 is too flip. Between ALT1 and ALT2, I think ALT2 sounds more like a solid fact worth noting. BD2412 T 01:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if we were to approve one, I agree that it should be ALT2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

for ALT1 or ALT2. Looking through the rules, the key term here is unduly. Accompanied by or promote one side of an ongoing dispute, my impression is that the spirit of the rule is to not violate WP:NPOV by focusing in on a negative fact not representative of an individual as a whole. In this case, the individual is known primarily for facts most readers will perceive as negative, so the proposed hooks are representative, and indeed it would arguably be WP:FALSEBALANCE to go with ALT3 or similar. The discrepancy between WP:DYKRULES and WP:HOOK is concerning and should be rectified (and is a great example of why we should be consolidating redundant creep), but DYKRULES takes precedence, as WP:HOOK is part of the unofficial "Learning DYK" guide.

I note for the promoter that theleekycauldron completed initial components of the review above, and that the WT:DYK discussion has not garnered much input that could affect consensus here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

T:DYK/P2